<p>On the gun. No TM DNA on the gun, but there are plenty of Zimmerman DNA on the gun including his own blood. Not very significant, but one thought I have is that it can be seen as consistent with the fact that Zimmerman shot TM after he was injured in the fight.</p>
<p>Maybe this was already discussed. How does Zimmerman’s taped statement(s) affect the ability of the prosecution to cross examine him? The prosecution introduced those to the jury as evidence. Did they have to do that? If they had not, could the defense have introduced the taped interviews/re-enactment? And had that been done by the defense, would the prosecutor be able to put Zimmerman on the stand for cross examination.</p>
<p>I’m confused by this because it looks as though Zimmerman has effectively given testimony with no chance for cross examination by the prosecutor.</p>
<p>no they did not have to do that. Some feel their choosing to do it was not as effective as they had hoped, some feel even more strongly, that they helped the D more than the Pros, for the very reason in your last sentence.
So far, I’ve not heard anyone say they were a great help to the Pros.</p>
<p>dadx–so far Zimmerman has not been the one offering into evidence these prior statements he made. There would not be a “right” of the prosecution to cross-examine him on the content of the documents/recordings the prosecution offered and had admitted into evidence.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Zimmerman can opt not to testify in his own defense. If he chooses not to testify, then there will be no opportunity for the prosecution to cross-examine him. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They did not have to introduce those statements, but the downside was that if they not used them, GZ could still have opted not to testify – with the defense attorneys still able to argue reasonable doubt as to the circumstances and self defense, based on witness testimony that TM was on top of GZ at one point, and GZ’s injuries. Without GZ’s statements, its also possible to draw the inference that the gun went off accidentally. So you could get an acquittal just on the jury’s sense that they did not have enough evidence to draw any conclusions about what happened. </p>
<p>Also, if the prosecution had not introduced the statements, then if GZ did testify, he could have been well prepped to head off apparent inconsistencies from the beginning – thus undermining the impact of questions to impeach him. That is, right in his direct testimony he could say, “I told officer so-and-so X, but realized later on that I was mistaken. Here’s what really happened.” </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Probably not. The tapes & reenactment are admissible AGAINST the defense under an exception to the hearsay rule called “party admissions”. “Hearsay” is a statement made out-of-court. The “party admissions” exception says that if someone is a party to an action and has made a statement that is admitting a material fact against them, then that statement can be introduced to prove the case. Although GZ’s statements were self-serving, they also contained admissions – such as GZ admitting that he shot TM, and that he fired on purpose. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, absolutely not. The 5th Amendment gives defendants in all criminal cases the absolute right not to testify. GZ also had an absolute right to shut up and not talk to the cops the night of the incident as well. I understand why he was talking to them the night of the shooting, but if he was smart he would have asked for an attorney before coming in for any subsequent interviews.</p>
<p>Oh, I agree, Calmom. I’ve always assumed that GZ will not testify. What I was asking 07DAD was if he had any statistics on the number of people (in Florida, since he seemed to have found some data from that state) who were acquitted on SYG or self defense grounds who did not testify. You’d probably have a better handle on this than me, but I find it a hard case to sell without the defendant’s testimony - harder than most defenses.</p>
<p>The FOX interview was with Counsel present - it’s God’s Will ;)</p>
<p>Here’s some Florida ‘Stand your ground’ cases:</p>
<p>[Stand</a> your ground database | Tampa Bay Times](<a href=“http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/data]Stand”>http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/data)</p>
<p>I’d add that I thought the prosecution would introduce those statements all along-- I really don’t think they had another choice. I once was defending a case involving a stabbing where my client had clearly been the stabber, but there were a lot of people on the scene. Everyone thought my client would testify – there was a lot of time in the courtroom when the jury wasn’t present when my client would be saying things indicating he was eager to tell his side of the story. In that particular case, there was a friendly dynamic going with the prosecutor and a lot of banter and chatter going back and forth during “down time” (time when everyone but the judge & court reporter was in the courtroom but court was not yet in session). </p>
<p>But after the prosecution rested his case, I realized that he had not put on any testimony identifying my client as the stabber. So I talked to my client, and we decided that he wouldn’t testify – and I argued to the jury that there was no evidence that my client was the stabber, as opposed to the others present who also had motive. The prosecutor was really worried – the courtroom staff (court reporter, bailiff) all thought after my argument that there was going to be an acquittal. As it happened, my client was convicted anyway – but the point is that it was a huge mistake for the prosecution to leave off proof of an essential element of his case on the assumption that the defendant would do it for him. </p>
<p>Obviously it was GZ’s gun, but as I’ve noted, without his statements you can’t rule out the possibility that the gun went off accidentally in the course of a struggle. </p>
<p>So I think it would have been risky for the prosecution to hold back. The flip side is GZ’s statement is demonstrably false in places that get to the heart of the self-defense claim – so even though it is not all that clear as it comes in, it is providing fodder for a very strong closing argument from the prosecution. It also pins GZ down – now if he testifies any attempt to “correct the record” by revising anything just seems like an obvious evasion and reinforces how important those statements are – so he’s pretty much stuck to the accounts he has previously given. (That’s why I don’t think he’ll testify – not much to gain and way too much to lose).</p>
<p>I think the defense will focus on forensic & medical evidence, especially to counter the claim that the injuries were not life threatening. It’s possible they could bring in a direct witness that the prosecution did not present --there were some people who gave statements at the time who have not testified. We don’t know why the prosecution chose not to put them on the stand.</p>
<p>
I agree – and some talking heads on TV also agree with you – it’s just that I don’t know if there are many cases where there is such extensive video/audio available of the defendant.</p>
<p>I think that the Sanford police went extremely easy on GZ – the interview where they had GZ listen to the 911 tapes to me always seemed like an effort the police were making to help him out, by pointing out inconsistencies and practically begging him to “remember” and fix the parts he’d gotten wrong on the other interviews. Even their tone said as much — I mean, I really don’t think I’ve seen a case where the police play back that sort of stuff for a criminal suspect. Usually cops will use that sort of information as a way to pin down the lies and inconsistencies without tipping off the person that is what they are doing.</p>
<p>I think that either way, once the jury hears the defendant’s account, their focus shifts from a broad “reasonable doubt” to deciding whether or not they believe the defendant’s account is true, rather than envisioning any other possible scenario as a reason to acquit. </p>
<p>I think that if I were prosecuting the case, my closing argument would superficially be aimed at proving the mental state required for 2nd degree murder, but I’d be focused mostly on nailing down the manslaughter elements. That doesn’t really need to be spelled out - but that’s where GZ’s wannabe cop attitude, loaded gun, & his lies about following Martin really lead. I mean, bottom line you don’t follow some person up a blind alley with a loaded gun ready unless you are prepared to shoot. (Obviously the walk through area was not an “alley”, but in the dark it was the same idea – GZ had seen TM head that way, he wasn’t looking for any street sign).</p>
<p>I had to stop listening during the blow-by-blow on the DNA evidence. They were on to Zimmerman’s clothes when I turned it off. I heard that there was no DNA from GZ on TM’s hands, sweatshirt sleeves, etc. and no DNA from TM on GZ’s gun (hadn’t his friend testified that GZ had told him TM grabbed it?). I am curious about whether there is any physical evidence that could be used to prove TM made contact with GZ’s nose/head/neck/whatever. Obviously the witness testimony was ambiguous.</p>
<p>I agree with calmom on this issue.</p>
<p>I have read effective closing where the prosecution had been harping on the fact that the defendant’s out of court statements had been shown to contain some “lies” and, therefore, the jurors should not believe anything the defendant had said in those statements. (the defendant did not testify at trial) The defense counsel had been able to get the “key” prosecution witness to concede that a couple of things he had said were not true and that he knew they weren’t true when he said them.</p>
<p>In closing, the defense counsel said “the prosecution wants you to understand that nothing, not one thing, a liar says should be believed. Well, if you throw out all a liar says, then out goes prosecution witness ____'s testimony as well. So, what is the remaining evidence against the defendant? Not one shread of direct evidence.” </p>
<p>It worked. </p>
<p>Rachel’s testimony includes her admission on cross that she did not always tell “the truth.” There is a risk to the “liar’s cannot be believed” argument. Absolutes have a way of biting back.</p>
<p>Zimmerman fully cooperated with the police. If he thought that he had done something criminal, he would have lawyered up.</p>
<p>I don’t think there has been any physical evidence of contact, certainly not by punching or with the hands. </p>
<p>I do think that there is another possibility for the nose – rather than a direct punch to the face. If TM ran from GZ, and then GM ran after him and grabbed him from behind in an effort to restrain him. TM could have head bumped him. I can tell you that as a parent, some of my most painful nose moments have been from getting banged by the heads of toddlers. No physical evidence of that either – so I don’t think it’s something that the prosecution will argue to the jury – but it would have been interesting if the forensics had thought to take swabs of DNA from TM’s forehead, the back of his head, or the back of his hoodie. I certainly wouldn’t rule out the possibility of a head-bump rather than a fist as the cause of injury to GZ’s nose.</p>
<p>
Cool. Is that a first? ;)</p>
<p>If you punch someone in the nose you HAVE to have a detextable level of the other persons DNA on your hand? I woudn’t think so.</p>
<p>
This assumption is not consistent with experience in the real world. Most defendants fail to lawyer up; yet most are in fact guilty.</p>
<p>As to DNA, I suppose anything is possible. But some things are more improbable than others. The absence of any of GZ’s DNA on Martin’s hands is hard to square with GZ’s description of events. Not impossible, I wouldn’t think, but one more improbable thing to try to square with the defense.</p>
<p>I honestly think this case could go either way. I think that the evidence of an altercation of some sort - GZ’s injuries, minor as they may be, and the limited observation of witnesses - helps the defendant. On the other hand, GZ’s stated mindset as recorded in his phone calls and his evasiveness about some points tends to undercut his self defense claim. The jury’s been there and has seen all the evidence (and I haven’t.) I wouldn’t be surprised by any development at this point.</p>
<p>Zimmerman’s father was a magistrate and he was likely familiar with the legal system ans he still fully cooperated. That speaks to me that he feels he didn’t commit a criminal act.</p>
<p>As far as inconsistencies in his story, it’s difficult to remember details after a traumatic event. It would be surprising if there weren’t minor inconsistencies.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But there is a very big difference in the quality of the falsehoods.</p>
<p>Most of Rachel’s “lies” were what I would deem social lies – the lies that you tell to avoid hurting other’s feelings. She cleaned up the language in the letter that was sent to Trayvon’s mom. She made up a sympathetic-sounding excuse for not attending the funeral. </p>
<p>That’s different from GZ, who appears to have told self-serving lies about how he came to be in the place where Trayvon was shot, and clearly has a motive to tell an equally self-serving lie about who hit first and what was happening immediately before the shooting. </p>
<p>Rachel is an innocent girl who unwittingly became a witness to a shooting, and who probably felt overwhelmed and frightened. I did not watch the testimony, but from what I have heard I think that the defense made a huge mistake keeping her on the witness stand so long – I think they came off as badgering her and it probably had the impact of reinforcing rather than undermining her testimony, as she remained firm about key points on the second day.</p>
<p>My personal take on Rachel is that she is a person with a significant language-based learning disability – possibly undiagnosed, but it is clear that she has some difficulties understanding questions put to her and expressing herself, and she probably cannot read at anywhere near an appropriate level for her age nor write. Her age also indicates that she has been held back in school in the past. It’s quite possible that the lying about her age is habitual – she may actively try to conceal from classmates that she is older than them, due to embarrassment. The whole “can’t read cursive” thing and asking a friend to write a letter for her is also classic behavior for a dyslexic teenager – they will tend to do everything possible to hide their disability and enlist others to do their reading and writing for them. On top of that Rachel is probably extremely self-conscious about her weight - so she probably was terrified of coming to court and being exposed to ridicule. Hence her wariness and hostility on day #1.</p>
<p>I don’t think Rachel’s testimony was all that critical --the phone records establish that TM was talking to her. It doesn’t really matter what was said – as GZ’s own on-the-scene phone call confirms that TM ran away from him, and the fact that he was talking on the phone to anyone negates the idea that he was planning to attack anyone. Her bluntness about the language used tends to add credibility: why would she clean up the language out of court, then put that back in only in front of a jury? It suggest that she take the oath quite seriously – it was o.k. in her mind to tell those social lies, not o.k. to lie in court. I don’t think she could have heard the sound of wet grass and I have my doubts about the last “get off” part – but I don’t think she consciously invented those details. I think those are the tricks her own mind has played on her after-the-fact. She heard something when the phone call ended, but it is just as likely that it was static on the line as wet grass… She’s been questioned multiple times about the incident, and it’s very easy for something suggested in a question to later become part of the remembered testimony (a huge amount of literature on that from Loftus & others who have studied memory). </p>
<p>I think a smart defense attorney would have taken a much more sympathetic and lightly condescending approach with her, rather than trying to have it both ways with her testimony (that she’s lying about hearing TM say “get off” but telling the truth about the words “creepy ass cracker”). I think it would have been better for the defense to establish simply that she is none-too-bright and doesn’t really remember what she heard, perhaps even working around to a suggestion that she didn’t realize that TM had been hurt or injured because the conversation did not quite end the ways she said it did.</p>